Subject:
|
Re: CLSOTW - Thanks
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.fun
|
Date:
|
Tue, 4 Jan 2000 15:45:32 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
240 times
|
| |
|
|
On Tue, 4 Jan 2000 08:50:42 GMT, Mr L F Braun <braunli1@pilot.msu.edu>
wrote:
> Computers do not equal calendars. That's why the millennium starts *next* year, and
> the computer problem was *this* year--ten in machine language would read nine when
> converted from the binary, but before computers that wasn't the case. The old
> system has been around longer, and this argument came up *last* fin-de-siécle with a
> decisive victory in favour of 1901 instead of 1900.
_And_ the one before that, and presumably before that as well, except
that the newspaper/magazine hadn't been invented yet so we have no
documentation.
Jasper
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: CLSOTW - Thanks
|
| (...) Technically, there was, even if it was only defined 525 years later (I think the system was generated in 526). Y'see, when Dionysus Exuugus [sp, it's late and my Latin sucks] generated the "compiled, authoritative" Christian annular calendar, (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
6 Messages in This Thread:
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
